Do this around people with type 1 diabetes, and there's a chance you're wiping out their glucose monitor (a sizeable number of the continuous glucose monitor systems rely on a cellphone app, smartphones are becoming ubiquitous hardware/software.)
It might be a funny stunt, but there could be some serious consequences.
>a sizeable number of the continuous glucose monitor systems rely on a cellphone app
I thought medical hardware had to go through stringent approval processes with health authorities?
This is just an awful design in general. An auxiliary control system for your body should be much more resistant against electronic interference and self contained to prevent this kind of vulnerability.
Yeah, interfering with people's medical equipment is bad but whoever put such trash on the market should also get a prison sentence if it lead to harm.
Not using a wireless communication method reduces the chances that electronic interference will cause a problem. Obviously there's no way to completepy prevent issues but it's not so hard to implement things such that a misbehaving Bluetooth (or whatever) radio doesn't lead to a dangerous situation.
This is ridiculous. Critical safety functions should not be dependent on a unreliable medium that can be easily disrupted. There must always be a fallback mechanism.
People who use such a feature would surely have a backup strategy in case their phone dies, the battery dies, is stolen, is lost, or is unavailable for any number of reasons (fucked up OTA update? hacked? some dumb app crashing their device?), right? If they don't and just rely on that single consumer-grade device working all the time, I feel sorry for them.
This glucose monitor excuse gets trotted out for these topics every time, but someone wielding a Flipper is probably the least of your concerns if device and connectivity reliability is so critical.
> People who use such a feature would surely have a backup strategy in case their phone dies, the battery dies, is stolen, is lost, or is unavailable for any number of reasons (fucked up OTA update? hacked?
People become inured to extreme risks. It's common to come across people with history of anaphylaxis who only carry one or zero epipens, despite the extreme risk of death.
And it is their negligence there. It should not be the fault of the prankster who used the Flipper Zero to temporarily crash consumer information devices (people's iPhones).
Some schools ban phones completely. And the school is not responsible if the children can't call 911 if there's some emergency for example.
And some buildings are constructed of materials which will obstruct the mobile signal as well. Nobody is held responsible for that when they can't call 911.
And I believe it's perfectly legal for me to use radio-blocking paint on the walls of my own house, that might obstruct the signals for the neighbours as well, if I'm hypothetically in a weak signal area. In that case the mobile operator has no right to force their signals through my home, it's within my right to block it as long as I don't use any form of illegal jamming.
Nah, if you effect other people's property, you are morally responsible for the foreseeable outcomes. You don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility because you've decided that their preparedness didn't meet your expectations.
I should also apologize. I was over-aggressive in my response. Just ticks me off to see a comment that seems like it's defending messing with property of others (which you actually didn't imply, but instead I inferred it).
Well, given the recent trend in school shootings, someone would have panicked thinking that a student going postal would first attempt to turn off devices around to stop other people from calling for help.
Not accurate. TM already had a lock the market before LN acquired them. In fact, LN created their own ticketing platform to compete with TM... and failed miserably.
Take a look at the largest venues in the country. Most of them aren't owned by LN, but they still use TM for ticketing. If anything, TM has helped LN to acquire more venues than the other way around. In general, TM has a much more dominant share of the ticketing business than LN has of the venue or promotion business.
OP asked why nobody has beaten TM. The answer cannot be "because they have a vertically integrated monopoly" because in the past that wasn't true and nobody was able to beat them then either.
Even if a venue isn't owned my LN, they still use TM for ticketing because otherwise their booking agents won't be able to get the Clear Channel artists to come. It has been that way for a LONG time. Before LN, it was CC.
Source: I used to own a night club in San Francisco.
"Founded in 1996 by Robert F. X. Sillerman as SFX Entertainment, the company's business was built around consolidating concert promoters into a national entity to counter the oversized influence of ticket behemoth Ticketmaster."
It's kind of amazing how the present distorts our perspective of the past.
It was formed to compete with TM, because TM had too much market power. In other words, you didn't need to use TM if you were using CC from a business/monopoly standpoint --in fact it was against their interests. However, CC/LN often went with TM anyway because it worked out better for them.
No, LN was spun off from CC and after years of trying & failing to compete with TM, then acquired TM.
The point being: TM already had the market power before LN was on the scene, and all of LN's market power wasn't enough to get people to use their ticketing platform instead of TM. Saying LN is the reason everyone uses TM is very much getting it backwards.
So LN's market share in venues and acts is smaller than TM's market share for ticketing, and LN tried to use their venue/promotion business to launch their own ticketing platform and couldn't compete with TM... but right now the only reason people use TM is because of LN?
Surely, if LN's dominance is what is needed to lock up the ticketing market, LN's ticketing platform should have been able to compete with TM quite well, and TM should have been struggling to succeed in the ticketing market prior to being acquired by LN.
It's not that LN owns the venues, but that the venues have an exclusive ticket agreement with TM. So if you want to perform at this venue, you must sell via TM. When my startup was trying to compete, we found that basically every single outdoor amphitheater had exclusive ticket rights. This makes stuff like crowdfunding a concert impossible
This is a good point. In English “no” has a very specific contextual connotation and will not be interpreted as a general negative by most speakers. I would correct my earlier post but I cannot because no
